EU4 - Development Diary - 21st of February 2017

[Mortheim]

Paying tribute is different from being a tributary state. Rome paid tribute to the Huns (and other barbarian groups) to prevent Hun (and other barbarian groups') raids, but Rome was not a tributary state of the Huns. You are playing very fast and loose with words to conflate paying tribute with tributary states. One is an action and another is a specific type of systemic relationship between two states.

The problem is - after Muscovy was forced to pay tribute to Kazan it stopped paying to GH. Which lead to raids from GH and Crimea. At least you understand this? I'm arguing about implementation. Cause just Muscovy tributary of GH won't represent what was happening. GH was losing grip, so another horde decided to take all shit. Ofc if Kazan lost this war Muscovy would continue to be tributary state of GH, but it happened otherwise. So, representing events in one way is not what should be in "historically accurate" game.

Your argument is akin to saying that Burgundy wasn't a de jure vassal of France in the 1445 when it was.

Nope. My argument is about changes in relation between hordes and Muscovy. They were changing and representing them only in one way is strange for me.


Also, there is no mechanic for raids. Which happened A LOT. This should bother us more than tributary states It affected provinces much more than tributary states.

I'm fine with both of those if they are accurate. Although, IIRC, Pskov became a viceroyalty of Muscovy in 1399 which is not the same thing as being independent (in fact, in game terms, a viceroyalty is most adequately modeled by vassalage).

Nope, in 1461.

 

[al.gb]

It would be interesting seeing Muscowy not just ending up in early war with Novgorod every single game.

Still don't see the difference. Moscow refuses to pay tribute and start war with Novgorod anyway. Because tributary don't restrict your actions.

 

[Andy_Dandy]

Still don't see the difference. Moscow refuses to pay tribute and start war with Novgorod anyway. Because tributary don't restrict your actions.

Higher risk of 2-fronts war don't restrict your actions? OK, if you say so.

 

[Elisakar]

Why restrict this for the Eastern Religion Group? Is it historically accurate that way?

 

[Ostreiter]

Obviously this should apply to other types of nations, there are many vassals or guarantee relations can be better represented as tributary state, like Ottoman tributary vassals, Cyprus-Mamluk relation. Currently Cyprus is guaranteed by Mamluk at the start and this relationship is commented "# Cyprus, a Mamluk tributary" in the history file.

 

[Morricane]

Why restrict this for the Eastern Religion Group? Is it historically accurate that way?

If it is supposed to reflect the Chinese-style tributary system, yes.
The thing is that quite a lot of people in this thread talk about paying tribute in exchange for protection (usually from the one they pay the tribute to), which is an entirely different concept from what happened in the East-Asian world's tributary relationships that originated from the Chinese empire. Since the same word is used for two entirely different things, stuff gets confusing

Hence, the question is: what is EU4's tributary system supposed to represent: something originating from China (the examples make me think it originally was conceived as to adress this specific instance), or something more general/abstract/fictional?

 

[moscal]

I'm not advocating that Europeans became technologically superior due to being genetically superior, and nothing I said would indicate that. There were many complicated issues for why Europe moved so far ahead in tech historically. My problem with the game right now is that in most campaigns Asia (and even many African countries) stay on par with Europe for the whole game. The institution system and it's preference for Europe has not helped deal with this. I find this to be a major issue with the game, and this tribute system seems like it will only make the situation worse. I actually wouldn't be surprised to see Asia move ahead of Europe in most campaigns now, this would be especially true in multiplayer games.

This is a separate issue. In old system we had westernized Africa (plus modern technologies) and backward Asia. Why? Because Portuguese colonies were a source of modernization for "savages". New system is more rational - good use of wealth leads to modernization plus good contacts with more civilized peoples.

Ok. New system isn't ideal. One of the main reasons is too long time of game relative to the numbers the institution OR (parallel) too small number of institutions. In addition, money makes too great miracles in modernization.

For a good game, I use this mod.
http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=840179139&se

EDIT

Plus - ROTW should be more susceptible to estates disasters.

 

[paulatreides0]

The problem is - after Muscovy was forced to pay tribute to Kazan it stopped paying to GH. Which lead to raids from GH and Crimea. At least you understand this? I'm arguing about implementation. Cause just Muscovy tributary of GH won't represent what was happening. GH was losing grip, so another horde decided to take all shit. Ofc if Kazan lost this war Muscovy would continue to be tributary state of GH, but it happened otherwise. So, representing events in one way is not what should be in "historically accurate" game.

Which is irrelevant, because whether Muscovy paid tribute or not or who it actually paid tribute to doesn't affect whether or not it was a de jure tributary of the Golden Horde. Just like whether Burgundy followed the wishes of the French king doesn't change the fact that it was a de jure vassal of France.

Having Muscovy as a high LD tributary state of the GH (that is, thus, not paying tribute because of high LD) makes perfect sense. It's a de jure tributary, but defacto is not because it's high LD means it refuses to pay the promised tribute.

Nope. My argument is about changes in relation between hordes and Muscovy. They were changing and representing them only in one way is strange for me.

De facto, but not de jure.

Also, there is no mechanic for raids. Which happened A LOT. This should bother us more than tributary states It affected provinces much more than tributary states.

Then it's irrelevant.

Nope, in 1461.

No, in 1399. After that Pskov Republic was a viceroyalty of Muscovy with it's namestnik chosen by the Muscovites.

 

[net.split]

Well, regardless of what the system is supposed to represent precisely in terms of historical context, the mechanics do a great job of simulating many tributary state relationships around the world.

An obvious one I haven't seen directly mentioned is Ottomans - Ragusa. Ragusa remains an independent OPM throughout the entirety of the game's timeline, something that's otherwise generally impossible outside of something like a HRE free city. And its eventual fall is linked directly with the decline of the Ottoman Empire. These mechanics would fit this situation perfectly, much better than the weird guarantee that the game starts with (something that's wholly useless for the Ottomans strategically since it takes up a relations slot and gives them absolutely nothing in return).

However, I see the reason for limiting the mechanics in the way they have been, and I don't see an easy way to provide a sensible exception here, as much as the situation otherwise warrants it. Maybe Empires are allowed to create tributaries out of Republics? Though that could get weird with some of the late-game republics, and permitting it only for Merchant Republics might result in those surviving longer than they should in general.

 

[Dakka]

Or make it so that you can toggle "raid status" which allows you to move your stack to another country. You can then loot the provinces, but as long as you are in that country that stack is treated as "hostile" to that country and its vassals/overlords

This would also give extra value to the "loot speed" ideas, since as of now they are kind of meh at best

 

[al.gb]

Higher risk of 2-fronts war don't restrict your actions? OK, if you say so.

There is always chance of war on two fronts (or even multiple fronts) for Moscow, if something goes bad. So what will change from additional СВ? Hordes already has free CB from start.

 

[Praetorian44]

This is a separate issue. In old system we had westernized Africa (plus modern technologies) and backward Asia. Why? Because Portuguese colonies were a source of modernization for "savages". New system is more rational - good use of wealth leads to modernization plus good contacts with more civilized peoples.

Ok. New system isn't ideal. One of the main reasons is too long time of game relative to the numbers the institution OR (parallel) too small number of institutions. In addition, money makes too great miracles in modernization.

For a good game, I use this mod.
http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=840179139&se

EDIT

Plus - ROTW should be more susceptible to estates disasters.

I'll have to check out that mod, thanks for suggesting it

I don't really see how this is a separate issue though. If the system already doesn't work well, as it can't simulate the factors that led Europeans to gain a technological advantage, then how does it make sense to add a massive source of monarch power to only Asian countries. This will only make the problem worse.

 

[Dirk_Slamchest]

An obvious one I haven't seen directly mentioned is Ottomans - Ragusa. Ragusa remains an independent OPM throughout the entirety of the game's timeline, something that's otherwise generally impossible outside of something like a HRE free city. And its eventual fall is linked directly with the decline of the Ottoman Empire. These mechanics would fit this situation perfectly, much better than the weird guarantee that the game starts with (something that's wholly useless for the Ottomans strategically since it takes up a relations slot and gives them absolutely nothing in return).

This is a good point, but I think it says more about guarantees than tributaries. Guarantees are not even slightly worth taking up a diplo slot. They're not even good for staking out potential victims, because they give you a truce when you revoke them. They should provide power projection or diplo reputation or literally anything useful to the guarantor.

 

[DàbiànLājīdàrén]

When will non-Ottoman Asian powers get harem mechanics? Literally every major Asian monarchy had harems.

Why do China and Korea not start with printing press institution? Movable type was invented in both China and Korea prior to printing in Europe and Europeans even said China printed more books than the rest of the world even as late as the 17th century. The event art in EU4 shows the block print, which Asia has literally had since at least the 8th century AD.

Why can't every coastal power have raiding? Japanese wakou pirates have raided Chinese coasts since the medieval age and so did Indians.

Why can't non-hordes raze territory? Are non-nomads genetically incapable of razing and burning stuff?

BECAUSE IT'S A GAME

Would it make you feel happier if they renamed it "Chinese Tributary System" "Ottoman Harem System" "Barbary Pirate plus some special European raiding" "Nomad Razing system" and "Super Special Never Before Seen European Printing Technology"?

 

[indalecio248]

So it's basically a (mob) protection racket

"Thats a nice nation you have there. It'd be a shame if anything were to happen to it."

 

[hiZis]

This was considered but ultimately discarded. The hordes were already on the decline at the time.

Why? Muscovy would be disloyal, but it would be historical. Very strange decision, I'm telling you this as a Russian.

 

[Andy_Dandy]

There is always chance of war on two fronts (or even multiple fronts) for Moscow, if something goes bad. So what will change from additional СВ? Hordes already has free CB from start.

I guess the AI is more likely to attack the more reasons it has to. Perhaps Muscowy would even choose to pay tribute for some extra years to prevent a 2-front war. These are all consequences giving direct and potentially indirect impacts on the gameplay.

 

[paulatreides0]

Why? Muscovy would be disloyal, but it would be historical. Very strange decision, I'm telling you this as a Russian.

I would agree. The reasoning is really iffy, especially in a game where you can, with relative ease, resurrect the hordes into an empire that would make the great khan himself jizz in his pants.

Muscovy could just start off as a disloyal tributary with high LD. At worst it has relatively little effect on the game, and yields a bit more accuracy which is always a good thing where you can have it without butchering game balance/mechanics.

 

[DàbiànLājīdàrén]

The real reason is because paradox doesn't think Muscovy in its current state would be able to reliably defeat hordes.

 

[paulatreides0]

The real reason is because paradox doesn't think Muscovy in its current state would be able to reliably defeat hordes.

But that's fine, no? Tributaries can blob and carry out their own agenda anyway. So Muscovy would be able to eat Nvogorod and Kazan and even Lithuania/Scandinavia if it wanted to before turning to the GH. Muscovy wouldn't need to break free until it wanted to. Muscovy in 1444 may have a tough time against the GH (as would have probably been the case historically as well), but Muscovy in 1480 is another story entirely.

If anything, this would make Muscovy safer from being gobbled up by the hordes (although that very rarely happens now anyway, at least from my experience) and outside powers, since until it breaks away it will have the GH as a pretty much permanent defensive ally.